Lawyer-Client Issue Rises In Bomb Conspiracy Case

By MARY B. W. TABOR

Published: June 28, 1994

Lawyers representing the men charged with plotting to bomb New York City landmarks demanded yesterday to meet with a judge on how a crucial defendant's reported move toward cooperating with prosecutors could affect defense strategies of others charged in the case.

Such a meeting has been scheduled for today before Judge Michael B. Mukasey in the Federal District Court in lower Manhattan at the request of one of the lawyers.

In a letter to the judge, Roger L. Stavis, one of the defense lawyers for El Sayyid A. Nosair, contended that cooperation by Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, the man accused of leading the plot, would present "serious issues of attorney-client and attorney work product privileges" because Mr. Siddig Ali had been present at joint-defense strategy sessions.

Other defense lawyers said they, too, were concerned.

"Siddig is certainly going to betray the other defendants," said Charles Lavine, the lawyer for another defendant, Fadil Abdelgani. "But is he going to use the information he collected after they were incarcerated? The answer is probably yes."

Emanuel A. Moore, the legal adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who is charged in the case along with a dozen others, expressed concerns about how Mr. Siddig Ali's defection would affect the trial schedule as well. Prosecution Defends Actions

But the Government, in a two-page letter to the judge yesterday, defended its actions, saying prosecutors had not done "anything affirmative to acquire access to defense strategy" or to "have a 'spy in the camp' once that opportunity presented itself."

The letter also included the Government's first public indication that Mr. Siddig Ali, the man accused of leading the plot, is entering a settlement with prosecutors. The settlement with Mr. Siddig Ali, a 33-year-old Sudanese man, will almost certainly require him to plead guilty to the charges against him and to appear as a witness against Mr. Abdel Rahman and others charged in the case.

In the Government's letter to the judge, an assistant United States attorney, Andrew C. McCarthy, did not detail parameters of the settlement being negotiated. But he said that the Government had "taken steps" with Mr. Siddig Ali to "avoid discussions of defense strategy and to avoid injecting him into a joint defense situation" during negotiations.

Defense lawyers, who say that Mr. Siddig Ali's defection compromises their case because he knows the defense strategies for other defendants, said yesterday that the prosecutor's letter confirmed their belief that Mr. Siddig Ali had agreed to cooperate.

"McCarthy is attempting to tell the court there is a cooperation agreement without saying it," said Ronald L. Kuby, who has been Mr. Siddig Ali's lawyer since shortly after his arrest a year ago. 'Terrorized,' Lawyers Contend

Over the weekend, however, Mr. Kuby was notified of his dismissal in a one-sentence letter from Mr. Siddig Ali sent from the United States Attorney's office. Mr. Siddig Ali's new court-appointed lawyer, Howard R. Leader, did not return calls to his office yesterday.

Mr. McCarthy's letter was in response to charges by Mr. Kuby and his partner, William M. Kunstler, that the Government had "terrorized" Mr. Siddig Ali into cooperating "so that the Government will not have to rely on its chief informant, Emad Salem."

Defense lawyers in the case are expected to try to prove that Mr. Salem, an Egyptian intelligence officer who secretly recorded Mr. Siddig Ali and other defendants, entrapped their clients.

In a clue that Mr. Siddig Ali might testify for the prosecution, Mr. McCarthy said the Government will press for Mr. Kuby and Mr. Kunstler to withdraw from representing another defendant in the case, Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny, because of their "conflicts of interest." The lawyers, for example, would be prohibited from cross-examining Mr. Siddig Ali because of their previous relationship with him.